Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 am Post subject: Who Shall Save Rome...CONTINUED!!
Sulla is a mass murderer who killed great politians merely becuase they were a threat to his power, not because they were a threat to rome. he also broke the roman values of the mos maiorum by gathering all of his rivals and enemies together and screaming at them for hours. blatant social slander is punishable by brutal death in the roman culture, but since Sulla was a ruthless dictator, he was, of course, above the law.
my fellow online senators, Rome needs a leader that has both military strength and the know how to use it wisely. Pompey has proved these abilities as we already stated in quick and efficient elimination of the medditeranean pirates, and bringing the civil peace, even if only temporary that rome desperately needed in the times of anarchy that filled the streets with violence. instead of electing a leader that will act rashly without thinking, leading to simply more destruction, or on with one that takes killing and torture as the only option. vote 4 P0mp3y
wel i think that clearly sulla is the most obvious candidate for the saviour of rome. he was the most qualified and most efficient of the people and i heard many compelling arguments from the other sides but not enough to sway my opinion. haha. but really i think that some great arguments the other senators made were pompey's accomplishments as young as he is and marius' army work. but i was not completely convinced myself to either opinion. maybe that's cause i was too busy taking notes and not getting everything. wish my team had asked about why marius gave away his soldiers jobs to slaves and the devastating state rome was in when he left. also i still have no idea as to what exactly pompey has to offer our great republic of rome that sulla cannot do himself. please enlighten me. i think we already expressed hard enough about sulla's complete devotion to the rep[ublic and his efficiency and his age and wisdom which we hold to great value.
I'm not sure if we're actually still defending our people anymore or not from the perspective of Romans~ xDD But if we are, merrr:
@ Lysander: While it's true that Sulla eliminated some opposing forces, was it not for the good of Rome? And is power not an important Roman virtue? Remember Romulus and Remus? Romulus killed Remus, his own brother, but because of that Rome was created and shaped into a great empire. From this story, us Romans must know that power is important in such a society, and that sometimes people must die for the good of Rome as a whole. Also, he did help the government, and even though he was a dictator, as you said, he did give up his position, leaving the government in a much more stable position than it was before.
(...Though, if we're talking about our OWN opinions, NOT as Romans, I agree, Sulla was pretty much a jerk xpp)
Please post your thoughts on today's debate. Some items to consider:
* What was the strongest argument your team made? What was the best argument you DIDN'T make? There's no risk of asassination, so really dig in...
I thought that we had some good points about the OTHER teams' people and why they shouldn't be thought of as the savoir of Rome. And despite the fact that Sulla was pretty much hated by a ton of people, we still managed to find the good things about him and think about how romans would.
*What was the most compelling argument that the other team made? What was the great argument that they DIDN'T make?
I thought that the teams made lots of arguments that were really strong. Some people asked clever questions and pointed out things to opposing teams that made them look worse. Everyone really knew what they were talking about and everything was pretty much fantastic
* What did we do well in our debate? What could we use to work on? What are some ideas/suggestions/goals for our next debate?
I thought that the whole set-up what with actually be Romans in a Senate and having to be respectful and all (or die) was cool :3 'twas fantastically intense and awesome.
i think we made several good arguments, including "only a popular leader can save the people" and marius' military reforms. i am completely stunned that NOBODY, not even once, got even so close as to HINT that marius led a bloody 5 day coup against the roman government. while i understand it was hard to directly bring things like this up, there are many subtle ways to do so...
also, about sulla/marius. they both did great things for rome. i would agree with that. but you have to take the good with the bad. you cant just ignore all the horrible massacres they did just because they had some good ideas about political and land reform.
MY fellow Senators, it is with great confidence that I advise Rome to invest their faith into Sulla. Pompey's deceptive nature towards his family demonstrates his lack of virtues and Rome cannot be left to the unfaithful. Sulla fulfills his goals thoroughly and without hesitation to forcefully maintain power. Men of action are superior to the passive. Pompey should return to his previous occupation as "Butcher's apprentice", leave the political responsibilities to the legitimate.
* What was the strongest argument your team made? What was the best argument you DIDN'T make? I feel our protection of Sulla's principles such as violence were excellent considering their is a variety of material to use against him. We failed to emphasize his inability to be consumed by power which is an important quality for a successful leader.
*What was the most compelling argument that the other team made? What was the great argument that they DIDN'T make?
The opposing sides addressed Sulla's violent lifestyle and created a strong counter-argument. They neglected the statistics of Sulla's killings. (Staggering number of fatalities)
* What did we do well in our debate? What could we use to work on? What are some ideas/suggestions/goals for our next debate?
Interruptions didn't enter the debate which was great for speakers. The indirect approach could improve but it was satisfactory overall. I really enjoyed this style of debate especially the incorporation of roleplay. I didn't find anything negative about the debate, in fact it was the most entertaining class thus far.
Well guys (fellow senators) that was quite fun actually. Ok lots to say and also please don't be picky about spelling. thanks
Are we not as Roman Senators looking for someone who can work for our great nation Rome. Someone who will be able to help us out of our current predicament, a man that has before proven his military ability as well as his excelent social and political abilities. A man that has always been comitted to Rome, to what is best for Rome and its people. Well fellow senators I think that if we are looking for such a person Lucius Cornelius Sulla is our man.
He made his debut in the Social Wars (91-89 BCE) in which he proved his astounding military abilities as well as being a consul during that time. Later he saw that Rome was crumbling and he single handedly took over and rebuilt Rome from the ground up. Some may say that he was a dictator but he did what he did for the people of Rome and their future. As seen when he "retired" gave up power with grace, when it was his time to do so. Also in our Republic do we not indeed already have the positin of "dictator". The dictators job is to take control of all so that in a time where time is of the essence and quick action is needed. Sulla was merely doing this job when Rome was in such a state that no one could.
As Roman "men" of the senate we know that some of the most important "virtus" of a Roman man is to be strong,to be sly and smart like a fox, to be a killer, to do things for the good of all even at the cost of few and lastly to even in failure complete what we started. Well Sulla is the pure embodiment of all of these. He is indeed a killer, no one would deny that. He is strong both in the military and in politics, he is smart politically which is needed in our hostile world of Roman politics. He is also able to look past the suffering of few for the good of the majority, which a leader must be able to do since there will never be an easy answer.
This summed up Sulla is the man. He is not too old, has been dedicated to Rome always, but also has experience which is a must in such matters.
Many people may say that he killed too many and for no reason, but he killed only the enemy's of Rome in order for Rome to flurish, something that a leader must do as unpleasant as it may be. He rebuilt the the government, giving more power to the senate (us) and created new laws and restrictions in the government to prevent treachery.
In saying all of this I have made clear why Sulla should be our choice as the person who will "save Rome". But as others would say that there are indeed many capable people out there that would be better suited to such a job. Well I respectfully disagree.
Pompey, is indeed one of the greatest military geniuses ever. He did indeed rid the oceans of pirates and he indeed also has considerable power politically. But he is too young. That's right he is too young he rose to power too fast. If you my dear fellow senators would please recall our dear Pompey initially backed Sulla, but then he "defeated" the rebel general Sertorius. but in actuallity commander Metellus Pius had almost defeated Sertorius before Pompey arrived so when Pompey came and finished off Sertorius he stole Metellus' glory. The event that brought Pompey reallly into the eyes of others, he stole. Glory stealing as your as senators should all know is just plain hateful. Then Pompey our little lamb returned to Italy where the defeated slave army of Sparticus were. He finished them off. Again taking glory that was really not his. Which is just abhorent behavior.
The pirates were Pompeys greatest achievment, no one can deny that. But a leader cannot have just military smarts he must be politically sound too. Which Pompey isn't. Then he did not kill the enemy which some people think is kind or just merciful, he took them prisoners. But being "men" and Roman men we know that this is just a sign of weakness. which our leader should not have. To top it all off he then married, which any good Roman man should do. But he showed in his actions that he vallued his family over Rome. Just that should make him unworthy to lead us. We want a man who can put the good of Rome before anything. Pompey simply cannot. Though all of this said he is a military genius, so he might do well put in command of troops but not as our leader that we are now desperately in need of, maybe in the future when he is older and has more experience in politics and things other that militray but he is not what we need now.
Next is our dear Marius. He has indeed had enough previous experience, 7 consulships what a record. But does this not show that he is also not able to lead us. He has had his chance and he let it slip. After 7 consulships, we are still where we are and Marius is not known for doing anything particularly great or notable in those 7 years. He served in the African war, well great but he left. Laeving and not being able to finish is not something that we should want in a leader to save us in these dire times. HE also broke tradition by enlisting poor Romans in our armies as soldiers. While this does indeed give us more strength in numbers it also closes a class divide which our nation is founded upon. What if the poor after serving get above themselves and rebel. Especially since Marius gave them land in reward. Well this tactic is questionable at best.
Also Marius is a man who fled into exile after failing politically. He was not able to play our dangerouse political game and fell victim to his own mistakes. If we want a strong leader we should choose someone who we know is capable in politics not one who like Marius has failed and was forced to turn tail and run. which is soo very unlike a Roman.
Then again some people say that he was indeed able to take over Rome WHEN SULLA WAS AWAY in Asia. He did indeed amass great forces and took power. But after he got hold of power, the state of Rome was not at all acseptable. As our "records" say he had "destabilized Rome for years to come and raped her in a gruesome siege and massacre". DO we really want a leader who will take power BUT NOT FOR ROME. for himself, leaving Rome in such a horrible state. Proven by his death as the end of his reign, he did not graciously step down like Sulla did. Some say that Sulla also killed many but he did it for the people not for his own power. And he then finished what he started by rebuilding Rome afterwards and retiring with grace.
So in conclusion the only person that I see as fit to lead us and to save Rome. THe only person who will do whatever it takes to do what is best for Rome, who will not continue to rule past his time, who has in the past proven himself with both military ability and political ability, who has the forsight to not just act but to finish the act is Lucius Cornelius Sulla!!!!
Many of the best arguments we could have made were considered direct attacks that would end in our assassination. Some examples are: The fact that Sulla, in the wake of the social war, turned on Rome; and through force regained his previously lost Consulship. Also, Sulla's decisions and actions as a Consul reflected on his own personal interests and not those of Rome as a Whole. The other teams could have come up with many compelling arguments considered direct attacks. The whole "assassination" theme prevented us from making direct, down to earth statements, and I feel this stunted our progression greatly. However, I think we managed to abide by this rule quite well, save for some exceptions. I think we would be better off with more specific, historical examples when we praise or criticize the different "saviors" of Rome.
I think a really important argument my team made was that Sulla followed the motto "The Ends Justify the means" This motto encompasses all of the roman virtus, and the fact that Sulla came into Rome when it was failing and then left it a prosporing republic I think shows a lot. I think another fact about Sulla that is important is that he walked away from the dictatorship that he had over Rome and shared his power. So that condradicts the statements people make when they say he was just in it for gaining power for himself. that is clearly not true because towards the end of his power he tried very hard and succeeded in gaining the senate more power and giving the power back to the republic which essentially is giving the power back to the people.
The other teams focused on the fact that Sulla was very violent and he did kill a lot of people. But I think that my group did a good job of fighting back by saying that those killings were for the good of the whole, and that it was just proof of the fact that he encompassed the roman virtus by the fact that he believed and demonstrated that violence leads to power and good outcomes.
My group did a really good job when it came to the rebuttal portion of the debate but like the last debate we struggled to fill the time alloted to us for our opening statements, and went under by 2 minutes. I think organizing and planning more for the opening statements next time would be good.
I thought we had really good arguments today, and we didn't go over the line. I do want to recognize team Sulla, because there is just so much against Sulla and it's hard to fight for a side where the odds are against them. Sulla was declared a public enemy and went to war, and was probably the worst choice to save Rome. Sure, Sulla had many Roman qualities, but Marius believed in land reform and class equality. These things would eventually lead Rome to their goals of having more land to prosper. I think that Romans would greatly respect war veterans for being the exemplar Roman with virtus.
i feel as though all of us brought up good points today and that we all argued our sides best. it was surprisingly difficult for me to defend and accuse but not be so direct that would make me be assassinated. i agree with farrah that sulla's team did very well trying to put sulla forward because it seemed to be a very difficult team to be on but they were very convincing.
I think one of the strongest arguments our team made, which we didn't emphasize until the closing statement, was that only a popular leader can save the people. Marius helped reform the army by letting lower class enlist. He showed his empathy by giving lower class people an opportunity to improve their social standing by acquiring land from serving in the military and giving veterans land after serving their term. This raised his popularity/public approval among Romans that were not just the elite group of Romans. I think my group made the point of reforming the army well. However, i think we should have gone in more detail (with examples possibly) about how only popular leaders can truly save the people. More people will follow, strength in numbers, etc.
I think Pompey's group did a very good job and made great points. Specifically, when Ivy addressed the issue of being called a "teenage butcher. " it was a clever defensive. Similar to what Lysander already said, I was very surprised nobody mentioned how Marius lead a five day massacre! I wasn't sure how we were going to defend that action but luckily it wasn't addressed.
I think our greatest obstacle in our debate was the lack of time. It seemed very rushed and once everyone appeared to be comfortable and in a groove, class was over.
Senator Douglas you mentioned that Sulla, "was the most qualified and most efficient of the people" how was he the most qualified and efficient? What did he achieve? Can you elaborate?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
